I agree. If he does it for one thing...what's to say he stops there? When stuff like that becomes the norm...it'll catch on to other parts of the country...and pretty soon it'll be so bad that if you write/say something a LEO doesn't agree with...they'll come get you no matter where you are.

"Maybe the cops just roughed him up a bit and somehow thought the ridiculous Taser story would cover it all up? Even the DA can't seem to get his narrative right. "

"So, which is it? Was he struck in the face by a Taser or were his "legs pulled out" from under him? Either way, it's conceivable he'd take a faceful of pavement. But neither response sounds appropriate."

I really hope you're joking. You think the DA was really suggesting that happened? I would say it makes more sense to say the DA was using the leg pulling as an example. Cmmmonnn mannnnn.

Although..I think it makes more sense that they roughed him up. What does the cruiser cam show?

This one happened oversea's in Germany when I was stationed there with the Navy. A German man was out and about with his mistress. He happened to be speeding, spped camera took his picture. Picture got him getting a blowjob from his mistress. Picture was sent to his house. Said picture then got viewed by his wife, who then divorced him and sued and blah blah blah...took him to the cleaners. He then sued the local government for invasion of privacy and won his case.

I know that's way off topic of cop cams...but to me...a cop wearing a cam, while I'm 50/50 on the idea of it, could still present privacy issues. I'm sure the cases in which it would happen are rare, but, isn't that what most of us are against? The one time something happens, and it gets turne into the norm.

As far as red light cams not being the same as cop cams, very true. However, what I was getting at was the fact you might have a cop who, for whatever reason, might be near someones residence. What happens if a cop comes to your door, wanting to ask questions, they have the cam on.

I'm sure there are other examples..I just can't think of any right of the bat.

Now, I tried finding the story, but because it's an older story...right around 2004-2005, and my google search skills suck...I couldnt find the specific case.

The particulars though, are that Virginia Beach installed some red light cameras on Holland rd...and the way they had been installed, one of them was basically taking pictures of the back of someone's house. That person sued, and as far as I know, won, because they had been disabled by the time I read the story in a local paper.

I'd also be interested to see how this would have an effect on the privacy of citizens. I've seen some cases where traffic cams have been places at intersections...the red light ones that just take a picture if triggered.

Those camera's...after some litigation...were then disabled. So...a waste of money, because they happened to be able to take photos of someones house.

The post of New York City Mayor is just a political stepping stone. The longer Bloomnuts stays in power, the more powerful he'll be.

I definitely don't have all the facts, and may not be as knowledgable about all of this as some people...however, it seems to me he's following the one thing most "managerial" government types do. That....would be...statistics. Can you imagine the price it would cost for a city like NYC to purchase these? Then have the support staff for the devices?

If Bloomenstein can go to the public and say "We saved you this much money by not buying these cameras....blah blah blah". It just helps keep him in power longer. It doesn't matter if it would help cut down on police BS. How many times have we seen a politician roll out promises or speak of money saving plans...and gets elected on the basis that it all sounds good.